1 2026:CGHC:16286-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 191 of 2026 Vijay Kumar Sen S/o Suresh Sen Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Sulsuli, Ps- Deori District- Balod (C.G.) Permanent R/o Village- Mokhli, Police Station Lalbaug District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Presently Lodged In Durg Central Jail Durg (C.G.) Since In Jail Through His Friend Vikas Jain S/o Santosh Jain Presently Aged About 39 Years R/o 2112, Zonal Market Sector- 10, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary Home (Jail) Department Government Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Service Jail Department Jail Headquarters Sector-19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent Durg Central Jail Durg (C.G.) 4 - Collector Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.10 11:02:56 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 14.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities and direct the Respondent State to prematurely release the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in S.T. No. 25/2010, which conviction has been affirmed by this Court in CRA No. 826/2010 vide judgment dated 20.09.2017, and the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 01.07.2019. The petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2010 and has undergone more than 19 years of 3 incarceration including remission, with over 15 years of actual imprisonment, and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Durg. Further, upon becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, the competent authorities, including the learned Presiding Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, have all rendered favourable opinions recommending the petitioner’s release, also taking note of his satisfactory conduct and his disciplined behavior during parole granted on six occasions. Despite such consistent and favourable recommendations and the petitioner fulfilling the statutory requirements, the respondent State has rejected the petitioner’s application for premature release vide impugned order dated 14.02.2026 solely on the ground of the gravity of the offence, without adverting to the mandatory considerations prescribed under amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968; that the impugned order is ex facie arbitrary, non-speaking and bereft of cogent reasons, inasmuch as it fails to reflect any application of mind to relevant factors such as the petitioner’s long period of incarceration, reformation, conduct, and the favourable reports of all concerned authorities, and instead relies upon an irrelevant and solitary consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under the statutory framework, particularly Rule 358 and Section 432 Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the State is obligated to record a reasoned and logical satisfaction while 4 accepting or rejecting recommendations of the Sentence Review Board, which requirement has been completely disregarded in the present case. The impugned order thus suffers from arbitrariness, non- application of mind and consideration of irrelevant factors while ignoring relevant material, thereby warranting interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been convicted for a grave and heinous offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to a judgment of conviction which has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission and its adverse impact on society at large, the case of the petitioner does not deserve indulgence by way of premature release. Further, although certain authorities may have expressed favourable opinions, the ultimate discretion vests with the State Government which is required to take an overall view in the interest of society, and mere favourable recommendations are not binding. Remission cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same is governed by statutory policy and subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. Further, the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 has been passed after due consideration of relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, and cannot be said to be arbitrary or without application of mind. The long period of incarceration or satisfactory jail conduct by itself does not entitle the petitioner to premature release in cases of serious offences like murder 5 and therefore, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 7. The petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is in custody since 17.01.2010. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 19 years of incarceration including remission and has also undergone more than 15 years of actual imprisonment. The material placed on record further reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon, vide memo dated 14.06.2024, has given a positive opinion recommending grant of remission to the petitioner, and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, has also recommended the case of the petitioner considering his satisfactory conduct, reformation and discipline during incarceration, including his conduct during parole granted on several occasions. 8. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the respondent State vide impugned order dated 14.02.2026 is primarily founded upon the gravity of the offence and a general apprehension of adverse impact on society. However, such rejection does not disclose any objective material and is evidently based on mere conjectures. This Court finds that the impugned order is non-speaking and reflects non-application of mind, particularly when the relevant considerations such as long incarceration, good conduct, reformation, and favourable recommendations of the 6 competent authorities including the Presiding Judge, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police have not been duly weighed. 9. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which contemplates consideration of premature release of life convicts upon completion of the prescribed period, subject to evaluation of their conduct, reformation and overall suitability. The said provision embodies the reformative approach of penology and mandates fair and objective consideration. In the present case, the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria, inasmuch as he has completed the requisite period of incarceration and has maintained satisfactory conduct, as reflected from the recommendations of the concerned authorities. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim, in absence of any cogent supporting material, is contrary to the statutory framework and the reformative intent underlying the Rules. 10. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2000) 7 SCC 626 has held that while considering premature release, relevant factors such as impact on society, likelihood of recurrence and potential for reformation must be assessed. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 8 SCC 161, it has been held that orders of remission are subject to judicial review if found to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. Further, in State of 7 Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216, it has been emphasized that remission policy must be applied fairly and consistently. 11. The philosophy underlying premature release is reformative rather than retributive. Long incarceration coupled with demonstrated good conduct and favourable reports from competent authorities entitles a prisoner to fair and objective consideration. Once the statutory requirements are fulfilled and there is no adverse material, denial of premature release on vague and general grounds amounts to arbitrariness and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is based on irrelevant considerations and not on any cogent material. The positive opinion of the sentencing Court and recommendations of the jail and district authorities have not been accorded due weightage. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. Considering the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, his satisfactory conduct, favourable opinions of the competent authorities and absence of any statutory embargo, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release. The action of the respondent authorities in denying such benefit is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3. 8 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.02.2026 passed by the respondent State is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet